Receive Colin Beavan's posts by email:

No Impact Man: The Book

No Impact Man: The Movie

Site Credits

Activism

June 03, 2008

So, look, I've never even met a Congressman before, let alone tried to convince one of anything or hoped to get one to support any policies. So what do I know when it comes to assessing a lobbying visit?

But listen: I walk into Nadler's office and I sit down and I start by explaining where I'm coming from. I say that thanks to the visitors and commenters on this blog, I know that thousands of Americans are voting to do something dramatic about climate change, not just in the voting booth but with their willingness to change how they live.

I say that I know that polls put climate change about tenth in terms of voters concerns. But I add that the League of Conservation Voters did a study that showed that, of 3,302 questions asked of the Presidential candidates by Sunday morning talk-show hosts, only eight of those questions centered on global warming (that's 0.2%, by the way).

I start to say, "Imagine how concerned voters would be about climate change..."

I'm like, wait, this guy is on the same page as me. He seems sympathetic.

I'm there, by the way, to ask him to sponsor a "Sense of the House Resolution" asserting that the House of Representatives supports a climate change goal of 350 PPM atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here and here and get more details on my "asks" here). I'm there to ask that he signs and pledges to work towards the adoption of the 1Sky policy platform (including creating 5 million green jobs and a moratorium on building coal plants). And I'm there to ask him to try to persuade House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to sign on to all these goals, too.

But before I get to the reasons for my visit, Nadler starts doing the talking. He has briefing documents on his
desk in front of him and he's looking at them. He already knows what
I'm there to ask him for, because his staff have read my blog.

Nadler tells me--and I'm paraphrasing--that there is no use trying to get Pelosi to sign on to the 350 target. He says that if 350 PPM is truly the necessary climate goal then it is Congressmen Waxman and Markey, of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who need to be convinced. They are the House leaders on climate change. Pelosi and everyone else in the House, Nadler tells me, take their lead from them.

Then, Nadler looks at me and tells me that his staff tells him that 450 PPM is the accepted target for atmospheric carbon dioxide, not 350.

Now, then, if you've never met a Congressman, it's not that easy, I discovered, to contradict him. But, well, what else could I do?

"450 comes from the climate models of the IPCC, Congressman, and that science is old. Since then, our top climate scientist, James Hansen, has revised the figure to 350."

We talked some more and finally Nadler says to me that if I can provide good documentary evidence of the 350 target to his staff (which I am in the process of accomplishing), they would talk to Waxman and Markey's staff and ask them to consider adopting the 350 goal, too.

Then Nadler says the words that make him my hero. He doesn't say we have to satisfy ourselves with what is politically possible. He doesn't say we have to look for compromise. Instead he says that, if 350 is what's scientifically necessary, then that is what we have to aim for.

Then, he looks over the 1Sky Policy Pledge, and without a moment's hesitation, he signs it.

And that is the story of how a Congressman became my hero.

PS Now, it's your turn to visit your own House Representative and press for the 1Sky policy solutions and the 350 goal. Hell, if I can do it, so can anyone.

PPS Thank you, thank you, thank you to the over 1,000 who sent me emails of support. I think the Congressman was truly impressed with the number.

PPPS I'll let you know the winners of the Reverend Billy DVDs soon.

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

May 27, 2008

In this post, I present a layman's primer on global warming. But before we begin, I'm so excitedand full of thanks for the fact that I have received more than 2 x 350 = 700 emails of support for my coming visit to Congressman's Nadler (click here to help me reach my goal of 3 x 350 = 1050). Thank you to the many to bloggers who have spread the call, like May at 350.org, but more especially, those who are outside the green space like Ikea Hacker and Wise Bread (I plan to mention the rest of you generous bloggers in the coming days).

During my visit to the Congressman, I plan to ask him to sponsor a non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives calling for a climate change mitigation policy based not on what seems politically possible but on what is scientific necessary (go here for details and to read how to send an email of support). I will ask him to support the climate platforms of 1sky and 350 and to take the plea to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

But one thing I've realized is that many of us don't quite understand the complicated question of how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet in the first place and why the 350 goal is so important. For that reason, I've included this draft of an explanation that I'm working on for my book. I'm sure it's imperfect, and I'd love for people who know more than me to weigh in, but I think it's a good first stab at a layman's explanation.

For starters, greenhouse gases, for all the bad press they’ve been getting lately, keep us alive. Well, not so much keep us alive as allow us to be born in the first place. Because the greenhouse effect, as it’s called, is what keeps the earth at livable temperatures. The moon, for example, which has no atmosphere and therefore no greenhouse effect, bakes away at inhuman temperatures during the day and becomes an icicle's icicle at night. On earth, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere help keep us cozy.

“We’d all be dead if it weren’t for the greenhouse effect,” the climate change naysayers like to say, “so what are you worried about?” But the problem is not the greenhouse effect, per se. The problem is that the greenhouse effect is getting, as the climate scientists say, “enhanced.”

As it goes, certain naturally occurring gases in the earth’s atmosphere have little or no effect when it comes to warming up the planet—like oxygen and nitrogen. The sun’s rays can pass through these gases, bounce off the earth’s surface, and be reflected unencumbered back out into space. Certain other natural gases in the atmosphere—like water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and high-altitude ozone—have the effect of absorbing and trapping heat from the sun and warming the place up—the greenhouse effect.

It turns out, though, that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, human activities—especially burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and raising cattle—have begun increasing levels of those naturally occurring greenhouse gases. We’ve also added to the atmosphere a cocktail of other greenhouse gases that would not normally be there—like low-altitude ozone, substances known as halocarbons and a bunch of others.

The more we fill our atmosphere with these gases, the more we “enhance” the greenhouse effect, the more of the sun’s radiation gets absorbed and trapped, the warmer the Earth’s surface becomes. Think of throwing on a heavier blanket or putting double-glazing on the greenhouse or putting insulation on a building. Except that in the case of a planet warming, things get a lot more complicated and difficult to understand and predict.

For one thing, there is a tipping point, the level of greenhouse gas beyond which the associated temperature rise will cause damage—such as massive species extinction and the complete melting of polar ice—that cannot be undone. For another, as we continue to produce greenhouse gasses, we’ll reach this tipping point much faster than simple analysis might predict, because it turns out that the more we warm the planet, the more the planet warms itself. The scientists call this “positive feedback.” The rest of us might call it a frighteningly vicious cycle that goes, for example, something like this:

Warm the planet by adding greenhouse gases, and next thing you know, you get water evaporating from the oceans and entering the atmosphere as water vapor—the strongest of the naturally occurring greenhouse gases—which warms the planet more. Warm the planet enough to melt some sea ice and what used to be a highly-reflective white surface that sent sunshine back into space is now the dark blue surface of ocean water which absorbs it. Again, more warming.

The bad news is that the list of positive feedback effects goes on and is more extensive and complicated than anyone understands. Suffice to say, warming causes a domino effect that begets a lot more warming. In fact, in a study of the earth’s geological history, the United States Government’s most senior climate scientist, James Hansen, discovered that feedback effects increase the warming potential of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas, by a factor of three.

To put it another way, theoretically, when the warming contributions of feedback effects are left out, a doubling of the carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere from pre-industrial levels would cause a temperature rise of 2° C (3.6° F). But in real life, in the actual recorded geologic history of our planet, thanks to the contributions of the positive feedback effects, a doubling of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has caused temperature to actually rise by 6° C (10.8° F).

Which brings me back to this question of the tipping point. Climate scientist across the globe agree that there is atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide beyond which, if it stays at that level too long, the temperature will rise too much and the planet will irreversibly change.

According to Hansen’s analysis of climate history, that level is 350 parts per million (ppm) by weight. In other words, for every one million pounds of atmospheric gas, no more than 350 may be composed of carbon dioxide. This level must be achieved, Hansen believes, if, in his words, “humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.”

And the problem is, we’re already at 387 ppm and it’s rising by 2 ppm a year.

To help support my visit to Representative Nadler and my calling for a meaningful climate policy that supports the platforms of 1sky and 350, click here.

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

May 23, 2008

I really, really need support from all of you today (and I'm unashamedly bribing you with the offer of free Reverend Billy DVDs). But first I have to give you some background. Just read the bits in bold if you're in hurry.

Next Friday, May 30, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York's Eight Congressional District has kindly agreed to meet with me in his New York office. As one of his constituents, I intend to ask Representative Nadler to support an effective global warming mitigation policy that is based not on what is politically possible but on what is scientifically necessary.

More specifically, I intend to ask him to:

Introduce, as soon as possible, a non-binding resolution to the House of Representatives asserting that we need a climate change mitigation policy with a goal of no more than 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here). Furthermore, the resolution should say that the United States must collaborate with the international community to achieve an effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol that will achieve the 350 goal or better (depending on how the science progresses).

Pledge to support the 1sky.org policy platform that also includes creating five million green jobs (through, for example, weatherizing our buildings and manufacturing solar panels and windmills), and placing a moratorium on the building of new coal power plants.

Pass on to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter addressed jointly to her and Representative Nadler, in his position as Assistant Whip, asking them both to push for the introduction of new and the strengthening of currently pending climate change legislation to reflect the crucial 350 goal. This means, at the very least, aiming for an 80% reduction in climate emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2020.

Now then, here's how I was hoping you could help. My dream is to present Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi with between 350 and 3,500 (10 x 350) emails of support for these policy objectives.Can you help? All it requires is a cut and paste job (see below).

Fellow bloggers: would you be willing to pass this request onto your readers?

Everyone: would you email this around and get your friends to pitch in?

Two bits of good news:

Representative Nadler has been an ardent supporter of environmental issues ranging from the thorough cleanup of the World Trade Center site to securing federal funding for state conservation and wildlife grants. He received a score of 95% for his voting record in the 1st session of the 110th Congress from the League of Conservation Voters.

Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping have provided me with five copies of their new DVD, What Would Jesus Buy (watch the trailer here). I'm going to give the DVDs to people who send in their emails of support (the 1st, the 35th, 100th, the 350th and the 1000th).

Here's how to send in your email of support:

Simply cut and paste the below, making sure to substitute in your name, mailing address and email address, and send it to noimpactman+nadler+pelosi@gmail.com (it looks like a weird email address but, don't worry, it will work).

Dear Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi--

Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the people of the United States. It is indisputable that the health, happiness and security of the American people depends upon the well-being of our planetary habitat. It is also indisputable that the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases is causing changes in our habitat that will adversely effect Americans on every level--from our health to our economy.

On May 30, Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man will visit Representative Nadler to express to him support for a number of climate change mitigation policies that are much stronger than those currently passing through Congress. Please consider this a letter of support for the measures Colin Beavan will be advocating.

Specifically, I support Colin Beavan in requesting that Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi both, together or separately:

Introduce, as soon as possible, a non-binding resolution to the
House of Representatives asserting that we need a climate change
mitigation policy that accords not with what is politically possible
but what is scientifically necessary--a goal of no more than 350 ppm of
atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here). Furthermore, this resolution
should assert that the United States must collaborate with the
international community to achieve an effective successor to the Kyoto
Protocol that will achieve the 350 goal or better (depending on how the science progresses).

Pledge to support the 1sky.org policy platform that also includes creating
five million green jobs (through, for example, weatherizing our
buildings and manufacturing solar panels and windmills) and placing a
moratorium on the building of new coal power plants.

Push for the introduction of new and the
strengthening of currently pending climate change legislation to
reflect the crucial 350 goal. This means, at the very least, aiming for
an 80% reduction in climate emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 and a
25% reduction by 2020.

Yours sincerely,

<Your Name><Your Mailing Address><Your Email Address>

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

May 15, 2008

Tomorrow, Friday, May 16, is Endangered Species Day. To celebrate, the Bush Administration has made the historic decision to list the polar bear as endangered while promising to do absolutely nothing substantive about it.

Today, the Bush Administration listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but refused to address the main threats to the species – habitat loss, drilling and global warming. At the Endangered Species Coalition, we welcome the listing of the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, but we urge the Bush Administration to halt drilling in the bear’s habitat.

I guess it is hard for Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to ignore drowning polar bears and the science that shows that they are endangered. However, we are alarmed that they are ignoring the impacts of drilling and global warming on the polar bears’ sea ice habitat.

I would ask Secretary Kempthorne: if we are not going to stop the factors that are contributing to the loss of polar bear habitat and the melting of the sea ice, how are we going to protect the polar bear?

The administration is creating exemptions under a 4d rule that appear to limit protections for polar bears from oil and gas drilling in their habitat. We know that species listed under the Endangered Species Act are much more likely to survive and recover than those that are left off the list. By listing the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, it increases bear's chances of surviving. However, we are concerned that the Bush Administration is ignoring the impact of global warming and drilling on the polar bears’ sea ice habitat. We urge them not to allow drilling in the Chukchi Sea and other polar bear habitat by drilling loopholes in the Endangered Species Act.

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne also announced that the department will propose “modifications to the existing ESA regulatory language.” In the past, the Bush Administration has proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act that would dramatically weaken protections for endangered species and their habitat and used Solicitors Opinions to circumvent the law.

We are troubled about how this administration has reinterpreted the intent of the Endangered Species Act in the past and how they may attempt to weaken protections for endangered species in the future. We urge them to protect the polar bear and its habitat instead of using loopholes to weaken the law and science to protect species.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, “Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.”

The law - and the American people – demand that the best science, and only science, be used to determine which plants and animals receive protection under the Endangered Species Act. Clearly, the science says that polar bears need our help and need the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act. The administration shouldn’t ignore the science to protect its habitat. The polar bear is only as protected as its habitat.

The listing of the polar bear is a drastic change from the Bush Administration’s track record on endangered species protections. The Bush Administration has systematically undermined scientific decisions to protect endangered species. Currently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Department of Interior's Inspector General's office are investigating allegations of interference in a number of different Endangered Species Act-related decisions. Last year, Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald resigned after being investigated for her role in undermining the scientific integrity of numerous decisions. The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing on political interference in endangered species protections on May 21st.

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

May 14, 2008

350. I should write it 350 times. We should all write it 350 times. Everyone on the earth should get out a pen, write down the number 350, and send it to their head of state. 350 times.

Now let me explain.

For the next two or three years, the nations of the world are supposed to be negotiating a successor treaty to the Kyoto Accord, the current international treaty on reducing the emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. In December 2009, heads of state will converge in Copenhagen to sign a new treaty that would forge a new international agreement on how we, as a planet, can limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a level that would keep us safe from global warming's worst effects.

What is that level? How much carbon dioxide can our planet safely withstand?

350. As in parts per million (ppm).

The United States' most senior climate scientist James Hansen and eight other senior climate scientists have recently deduced, by studying evidence from previous climate swings in our planet's history, that we must reduce carbon dioxide to 350 ppm or below to avoid rises in sea level, severe changes in weather, droughts, lost of coastal habitat, plagues of tropical diseases, food shortages and on and on.

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted," Hansen and his colleagues write, "paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

A practical global strategy almost surely requires a rising global
price on CO2 emissions and phase-out of coal use except for cases where
the CO2 is captured and sequestered. The carbon price should eliminate
use of unconventional fossil fuels, unless, as is unlikely, the CO2 can
be captured.

A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices
that sequester carbon could remove the current CO2 overshoot. With
simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases, it appears
still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change. Present policies,
with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO2
capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of
the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil
fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another
decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of
atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic
effects.

The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal
use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared
with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life
on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest
danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic
consequences unavoidable.

The challenge is not scientific as much as political. Think about it. No electricity powered by coal. To institute these kind of policies, to achieve this goal on a worldwide level, to get the heads of state to put their names to 350 in Copenhagen in December, 2009 is going to take massive international political will.

The entire people of the world--including the Americans, the Indians, and the Chinese--will have to agree to the potential lifestyle change that working towards 350 may require.

A few of us have just launched a new [international] campaign, 350.org.
Its only goal is to spread this number around the world in the next 18
months, via art and music and ruckuses of all kinds, in the hope that
it will push those post-Kyoto negotiations in the direction of reality.

After all, those talks are our last chance; you just can't do this one light bulb at a time.

Photo from The Day After Tomorrow, courtesy IMDB.com. I know it's not a realistic scenario but you gotta love a dramatic picture once in a while.

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

May 05, 2008

The folks at 1SKy, whose mission is to focus the power of millions of Americans on the goal of federal action to reduce global warming, is coordinating a special, nationwide Mothers' Day action to bring lawmakers' attention to out concern about government inaction. 1Sky asked me if I might write a special, Mothers' Day post for their blog. What I gave them was a public Mothers' Day note to my wife, Michelle. It starts like this:

To my wife, my love, my partner, my Michelle (and to the House of
Representatives, the Senate, the current President, and the soon-to-be
2008 candidates for all of those offices),

A year and a half ago, I was desperately worried about the declining
health of our planetary habitat and its consequences for human health,
happiness and security. I worried about the kids caught up in Katrina
and the kids in our hometown of New York City who have asthma because
of the number of garbage trucks driving through their neighborhoods and
the kids all over the world, born and unborn, who will suffer from the
damage we have done and continue to do to our climate, air, water, and
earth.

Because I was worried about all these things...

Click here to go to 1Sky and read the rest. While you're there, click on "Act Now" to get involved.

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

May 02, 2008

Back in February, I wrote about about what the U.S. presidential candidates' said about mitigating climate change. At that time, McCain's proposals were the weakest while there wasn't much air between what Clinton and Obama proposed.

The question remained, however, about what each of the candidates, if they won the presidency, would actually do about climate change. Good climate policy will mean standing up to special interests and leading us through some potentially unpopular policy changes.

And we all know, that when it comes to politicians, there are those who will spend their political capital to help them do what is right and, on the other hand, there are those who will do what is wrong thing to help them win political capital. The question, when it comes to the issue of climate change, was which candidate was which type of politician.

Senators John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton have hit on a new way
to pander to American voters: a temporary suspension of the federal
gasoline tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The proposal may draw
applause and votes from Americans feeling the pain of nearly
$4-a-gallon gasoline. But it is an expensive and environmentally
unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers... Fortunately, Mr. Obama has not caved to the rising calls for cheap
energy and has refused to follow his rivals down this misguided path...

Joseph Romm, a progressive, who worked for the Clintons as acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy, writing critically of the gas tax on his blog, Climate Progress, says (again with my emphasis):

I write this post with some sadness. I would not have expected a
major progressive politician who obviously cares about global warming
to propose a gas tax holiday, which has no public benefits whatsoever,
but at the same time undermines the entire rationale behind a national
climate strategy that includes, as it must, a pricing mechanism for
greenhouse gases. I try, however, to be as consistent as possible — and
if such a proposal was cynical and hypocritical for Sen. McCain, it is
equally cynical and hypocritical for Sen. Clinton. Kudos to Sen. Obama
for opposing this absurd proposal — double kudos because it might cost
him a few votes.

Harvard professor N. Gregory Mankiw, who has written a best-selling textbook on
economics, said what he teaches is different from what Clinton and
McCain are saying about gas taxes. "What you learn in Economics 101 is
that if producers can't produce much more, when you cut the tax on that
good the tax is kept . . . by the suppliers and is not passed on to
consumers," he said.

Which makes the move by Clinton and McCain all the more cynical. While the measure will cost the federal government $9 billion and send entirely the wrong message on climate change, McCain and Clinton know as well as anyone else that oil companies won't pass the price break onto consumers but instead will pocket it.

They are paying $9 billion in our money, in other words, to make a false promise. They are trying to trick voters into voting for them.

Environmentalists said, according to the Post:

[that] stoking ire about the cost of gas undermines efforts to
build a case for limiting carbon emissions, which could raise prices at
the pump. "It sends a confusing message," said Kevin Knoblauch,
president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"What's more helpful is if [politicians] help consumers understand that
this isn't about near-term gas prices, it's about a comprehensive and
smart approach to energy policies."

The sad news is that this whole mishigas is a first indication of how McCain or Clinton would treat the climate issue if they became president. The good news is that it is also and indication of how Obama would treat it.

PS You might also read Sam Stein's critique of the gas tax vacation at the Huffington Post.

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

April 30, 2008

Yesterday, a reader calling himself "Richard Miller" left behind a critical comment about my meeting with Congressman Nadler in which I will ask him to sponsor a "Sense of the House" resolution calling for climate change policy based on what is scientifically necessary rather than just politically possible.

Richard asked, "How are you going to feel in a few years when your pet causes are proven to be hoaxes and frauds?"

I thought it would be fun, in today's post, to answer that question:

First off, almost no one serious, except for oil industry spin doctors (and welcome, "Richard," even if you are one), discounts climate change anymore. Even the current Administration accepts that it exists.

Indeed, most political observers agree that the real attacks on science pointing to climate change come from people and organizations who don't like the regulatory implications. They find it easier to try to obfuscate the science than to fight the resulting legislation on its merits (though, "Richard," if you would like to actually discuss the merits here on the blog, you would be very welcome).

Only yesterday, in fact, New York's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, called attention to the anti-regulatory attempts to manipulate science. According to Andy Revkin of the New York Times blog DotEarth, Bloomberg compared climate-change naysayers to tobacco-industry spin-merchants:

[Bloomberg] focused on smoking, reviewing how the tobacco industry spent
decades sprinkling doubt into discussions of science showing links
between smoking (and secondhand smoke) and cancer and other illness.
While many wealthy countries have moved to constrain and tax smoking,
the world, Mr. Bloomberg said, is still on a path toward a billion
smoking-related deaths in this century.

He then shifted to climate and energy, describing how science has
been distorted not only by industries and anti-regulatory groups, but
also political operatives working within government agencies. The
latest example, Mr. Bloomberg said, was the ongoing politics-driven
push to subsidize ethanol from corn. [Read the text of Bloomberg's speech here.]

But to return to your question, "Richard," since many of the measures needed to deal with climate change have a lot of positive benefits, if it turns out to not exist, I will first praise God in thanks and then I will think:

I am glad we created 5 million or more new jobs here in the United States in the fields of energy efficiency and renewable generation.

I am glad we created a culture that relies less on foreign oil, so that our children can live secure lives, knowing that the energy rug can't be pulled out from under them.

I am glad we have found a way to save people and industry billions upon billions of dollars by making the use of energy more efficient.

I am glad the millions of children who suffer from asthma can now breathe easier thanks to the fact that we aren't pumping the air full of toxins from our exhaust pipes and smokestacks.

I am glad that, by no longer burning oil and coal into our air, we've put an end to acid rain and the devastation of our aquatic life.

I am glad that we created good, reliable, fun-to-use public transportation system so that families no longer have to raid their budgets to pay for cars and gas.

I am glad we've stopped building suburbs, which make people unhappy and are designed for cars not people, and instead build villages where people can have strong community bonds that help make life fulfilling.

I am glad we now have fuel-efficient automobiles.

I am glad that we've learned as a culture to get off the work-more-to-spend-more treadmill which gobbles up resources and leaves us unfulfilled and instead turned to a way of live full of meaning and purpose.

I am glad that we have rejected the philosophies of survival of the fittest and competition for resources as driving philosophies and have instead embraced a philosophy of compassion and justice.

I am glad that we have understood that a sustainable society cannot work without supporting all of its people and that we looked for and found ways to improve the lives of everyone.

I'm glad that we've come to see people rather than things as our most valuable resource and that, in embracing the respectful and loving principles of not wasting, we have learned not to waste youth in prisons but instead to get them help for their drug addictions and alcoholism.

I am glad that, in realizing our resources are limited, we have come to use them to do what is important and to help each other rather than compete with each other.

I am glad that we have come to see education as the ultimate in sustainable industries.

I am glad that we have developed distributed, renewable energy technologies that allow kids in all parts of the world to have electric light so they can learn how to read.

The list goes on and on, but in short, I am glad that we have embraced the opportunities presented by the crisis of climate change in order to improve our society in ways we should have done anyway.

Now, a question for you, "Richard." Since I've answered your question honestly, I hope you'll do the same with mine.

What would you feel if we went your way and you turned out to be wrong? What would you feel if we all assumed, as you do, that we need not do anything about climate change, but then that it turns out that we should have? What would you feel if we buried our heads in the sand, ignored the problem, and then irreversibly damaged the planetary habitat that we depend upon for our health, happiness and security?

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

Let's start with the fairy tale that came true for the gasoline magnates:

Once upon a time, a number of companies bought up drilling rights here and oil refineries there and eventually gained control over the USA's gasoline.

For a while, gasoline hovered under $2 a gallon, and the companies and magnates had to console themselves with--ho hum--tidy profits.

One day, some people began to worry that there wasn't always going to be enough gas for everyone. "Demand will grow," they said. "Supply will fall."

But the gas companies and magnates, instead of panicking, began rubbing their hands together. Gigantic, ridiculously huge profits, they knew, come to those who wait.

Next, developing countries started buying cars and, at the same time, world gas production pretty much peaked. In other words, demand grew. Supply fell.

Prices skyrocket, people suffered, but the oil and gas companies and magnates made huge, unprecedented profits.

Peak oil, it turned out, wasn't their worst nightmare at all. It was their happiest fantasy!

So the oil companies and magnates lived happily ever after.

Too bad about everyone else.

Now let's look at the future fairy tale that the companies who privatize our drinking water look forward to:

Nestle, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Suez and a bunch of other companies buy up water rights around the United States and elsewhere.

For a while, people buy bottled water for less than $2 a gallon (even though tap water is free).

The water barons console themselves with--ho hum--tidy profits, selling their water for something like a thousand times what they pay for it.

Then, the phrase "peak water" gets bandied about, but far from worrying that the water will run out, the water barons begin buying water rights up faster than ever.

Next, in some future scenario, underfunding to the municipal water supplies or pollution in the aquifers means that clean tap water becomes scarcer and scarcer and drinking bottle water is not a choice but a necessity.

In other words, demand grows, Supply falls.

Prices skyrocket, people suffer, but the water barons make huge, unprecedented profits.

Peak water, it turns out, wasn't their worst nightmare at all. It was their happiest fantasy!

So the water barons lived happily ever after.

Too bad about everyone else.

You see, it's not just about the plastic bottles. It's not just about the food miles. It's about the fundamental right of access to drinking water. Are we willing for our children to have happen to them for water what is happening to us for gas?

I don't know what else, do you? Please leave your ideas in the comments!

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.

April 25, 2008

You probably didn't know that Brita, America's number one pour-through water filter, was owned by Clorox.

Now, the great news about Clorox's Brita filters is that they help make Americans feel good about tap water from our excellent municipal water systems, move off the throwaway plastic bottles (wanna try my ultra-cool reusable water bottle, by the way?), and stem the insidious privatization of drinking water. The bad news about Brita is that the filters themselves are disposable--throwaway--when they don't need to be.

Indeed, in Europe, the German company Brita, which sold its American operations to Clorox in 2000, takes back its cartridges. It shreds the plastic for reuse and reactivates the inner components--charcoal and "ion exchange resin"--for reuse either in more filters or wastewater treatment plants.

How cool is that? That's what you call treating resources with respect in a way that makes both the planet and its people happier. No poison fumes coming from incinerated Brita filters in Europe. Imagine how cool it would if we could say that here in the United States?

So why doesn't Clorox take back its Brita filters?

That's the question being asked by a group calling themselves Take Back the Filter, started by Beth Terry of Fake Plastic Fish, the blog about getting away from all things plastic. They want Clorox to start taking back Brita filters for processing and reuse in a Clorox facility (not for pawning off to some massive waste management conglomerate that will just ship them to developing world).

Already, Take Back the Filter is closing down on a thousand signatures on a petition, and people are taking it upon themselves to send used filters to the CEO of Clorox. It's been enough already to warrant a phone call to Beth from a Clorox executive.

See, we really can make a difference! And if you join in, we can make more.

No one, by the way, is saying Clorox is bad. We're just offering them support in changing their business to a more sustainable model. The CEO has a lot more ammunition at his board meeting if he has a dump-truck full of consumer-returned filters to show. And dump-trucks full of filters will make great TV images, too (think of it: your old filter on TV!).

Lastly, you may be wondering, Brita filters? Why bother? Aren't there bigger fish to fry?

No way! The journey of a thousand miles and all that.

What Beth and her pals have started is the best kind of consumer activism. This campaign has the benefit of aggregating individual consumer power in one place. Its message has a much bigger corporate audience than just Clorox. Successful or not, Take Back the Filter shows all American companies that American citizens are ready to band together to demand better.

Go Beth! Go Take Back the Filter! Go all of us!

----------

Colin Beavan (that's me!) is now leading a conversation about finding a happy, helpful life at Colinbeavan.com. If you want to know how people are breaking out and and finding authentic, meaningful lives that help our world, check it out the blog here and sign up to join the conversation here.